Skip to main content
Glama

ai-content-drop

by com.aicontentdrop
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Connect cards

connect_cards
Idempotent

Connect two cards on a board with a line from one to the next, so the board reads as a flow: a script card to the card that renders it, an idea to each of its variations. Costs no credits. Refuses a card connected to itself, a frame, and a connection that is already there. A connection made here does not make one card's result another card's start frame; add_generation_card with from_card_id does. SIGN-IN REQUIRED: connect this server with OAuth (the host prompts for it), or add an API key header "Authorization: Bearer acd_live_…" created at https://aicontentdrop.com/settings/integrations.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
labelNoOptional short label drawn on the line, up to 200 characters.
revisionNoThe board revision this change is based on (from the last board you saw). Optional: when omitted the tool reads the current one first.
canvas_idYesThe board id, from list_canvases or create_canvas.
to_card_idYesThe card it leads to.
from_card_idYesThe card the line starts from, from cards[] on the board.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
edgeYesA connection drawn from one card to the next: { id, source, target, label? }. data.role start_image means the source card's finished image is the target card's start frame.
canvasYes
next_stepYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedOutput schema / properties / canvas / properties / updated_at
      Removed value: -{
-  "type": [
-    "string",
-    "null"
-  ]
-}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / canvas / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "name",
-  "revision",
-  "card_count",
-  "updated_at",
-  "link",
-  "cards",
-  "edges"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "name",
+  "revision",
+  "card_count",
+  "link",
+  "cards",
+  "edges"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: no credit cost, three explicit rejection cases (self-connection, frames, duplicate connections), and the key semantic that this link does not create a generation dependency. It also discloses the auth requirement (OAuth or Bearer API key), which the annotations do not cover.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads purpose and examples before constraints and auth, and every sentence carries information. The auth block is verbose and repeated boilerplate, but it is materially useful for invocation success.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the description covers cost, failure modes, auth, and the crucial distinction from generation dependencies. Only minor gaps remain, such as what happens on a revision conflict, which the schema's revision field only hints at.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so canvas_id, from_card_id, to_card_id, label, and revision are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter-level detail (e.g., ordering semantics of from/to beyond the schema text), so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource — connecting two cards on a board with a line — and clarifies it is for flow/visual linkage with concrete examples (script card to render card, idea to variations). It explicitly distinguishes itself from add_generation_card with from_card_id, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete when-to-use examples and points to the alternative (add_generation_card with from_card_id) when the intent is a start-frame dependency rather than a visual link. It does not spell out an explicit 'do not use this when…' clause beyond the refusal list, so it stops just short of the top mark.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All ai-content-drop toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources